Rogers Media uses cookies for personalization, to customize its online advertisements, and for other purposes. Learn more or change your cookie preferences. Rogers Media supports the Digital Advertising Alliance principles. By continuing to use our service, you agree to our use of cookies.

We use cookies (why?) You can change cookie preferences. Continued site use signifies consent.

For the climate-change skeptics out there, who cling to their God-given right to ignore science and stoke debate with the fossil fuel of old-growth ideology, Chasing Iceshould be required viewing. And for those of us who are already sufficiently alarmed, and don’t think we can bear to watch any more inconvenient truths, it’s still required viewing. This is an eye-opening documentary, full of epic beauty and astonishing revelations (of the non-Biblical kind).

Which is not to say it’s a truly great film. Too much of the narrative dwells on the trials and tribulations of its hero, National Geographic photographer James Balog, whose personal quest can’t possibly compete with what he’s capturing through his lens. This story did not need “humanizing.” We could care less about Balog’s crumbling knee and its multiple surgeries as he struggles to rappel down an ice face—not when we’re about to see a section of Greenland’s ice sheet the size of Lower Manhattan, and twice as tall, calve into the Arctic Ocean in real time. Besides, the Extreme Ice Survey, which this film documents seems very much a team effort, even if Balog’s sensitive eye endows it with an esthetic grandeur reminiscent of Manufactured Landscapes, another movie that looks over the shoulder of a celebrated photographer.

James Balog hangs off cliff by Columbia Glacier, Alaska to install time-lapse camera

Chasing Ice has won awards at Hot Docs, Sundance, and South By Southwest festivals, and will likely be Oscar-nominated. It was created by Colorado director Jeff Orlowski and the Oscar-winning team behind The Cove, producer Paula duPre’ Pesmen and writer Mark Monroe. And its meditative score, in a Philip Glass style, comes from J. Ralph, the composer for The Cove and Man on Wire. Altogether an impressive team.

The film documents a project that begins in 2007 and stretches over years as Balog’s team install time-lapse cameras to observe shrinking glaciers in remote locations that include Iceland, Greenland, Alaska, Montana and the Alps. Along the way, using core samples of glacier ice, which trap bubbles of ancient air, scientists show irrefutable evidence that the global warming has risen and fallen in tandem with levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for 800,000 years—and that CO2 rates, and temperatures, are increasing at a dramatic rate with greenhouse gases.

While ice serves as a time capsule for man-made climate change, it also provides the most the spectacular evidence of it. The cameras show how, as an Arctic glacier dissolves, torrents of melt-water sink through crevasses and perforations and flow under the glacier’s base into the ocean. As the melt-water creates a feedback loop, we see how this accelerating process will reach an irreversible tipping point regardless of what happens to the weather or global warming.

The exquisite beauty of the vanishing ice, frozen in time-lapse photos, or caught cascading into the sea like a breaching whale may be of sentimental value. But it seems acutely relevant, as if the earth’s future lies in the crystalline depths of a world that is remote, alien and austere, yet serves as mankind’s ultimate biological clock.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Post navigation

Chasing Ice: Pictures from ground zero of climate change

The average temperature of the Earth is the same as it was 16 years ago.
The ice sheets in the Antartic are increasing at a record rate.
Scientists in the 19th Century were also alarmed at the rate of melt of the Artic ice and predicted that you would soon be able to sail across it in Winter.
Guess what? Yes the ice returned to normal levels in a few years.

But if the nwPassage opens up could that not be a good thing? Even if climate change would be so severe as to change current climate patterns, we, humans, will adapt to such changes. Humans have done so for thousands upon thousands of years. You really think the earth’s climate will change in such a hurry that humans won’t have the time to adapt? I am not that pessimistic about the human mind.

Yes, I am asking that question: which will it be cheaper/more effective ?

For instance: cap and trade has been going on in Europe for some time. That money spent, has it made a difference? I suppose it must have made a difference in regards to cleaning up the human contributions. If so, how much difference has it made?

If the cap and trade had made no difference, then why spent the money on it. Might as well spent that money on things which do make a difference, like adaptation.

Good to read that you are interested in using the most cost effective approach.

$23305474 on November 21, 2012 at 11:56 pm

that’s crazy… global warming is accelerating – what are you adapting to – the 1m of sea level rise we will have in 25 years, or the 4m we will have in 100? Its going to keep getting worse, outstripping our ability to adapt. ‘an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of a cure.’

dale Eheart on November 28, 2012 at 4:03 pm

Yes, history has show us that humans can adapt to anything except a price on carbon.

NASA and British Antarctic Survey scientists have reported the first direct evidence that marked changes to Antarctic sea ice drift caused by changing winds are responsible for observed increases in Antarctic sea ice cover in the past two decades. The results help explain why, unlike the dramatic sea ice losses being reported in the Arctic, Antarctic sea ice cover has increased under the effects of climate change.

ClimateChangeReeferMadness:
26 yrs of scientists NEVER saying it “will” happen, only “might” happen, is as good as saying; “it won’t happen” because not one single IPCC warning isn’t peppered with “maybes”. Not one. How close to the edge of no return from unstoppable warming will science take us? Is it a climate crisis (only a comet hit is worse)? Yes OR No?
Help my house could be on fire maybe?

If you would use your real name when posting on blog sites, I would consider you for real. I find it simply cowardly to hide behind an invented name. Get real first before you start dishing out orders.

Francien Verhoeven on November 20, 2012 at 2:21 pm

And how, pray tell, do I know you’re posting your real name?
In some ways an obvious pseudonym is more honest, in that it is an admission that we don’t really know who you are.

Phil King on November 20, 2012 at 2:58 pm

Really! Backward reasoning is now the norm?

In any case, I am not afraid to state my real name. You can look me up. I live in Erskine, Alberta, have neighbours and institutions to verify that. What does liamw have to verify his name? I will guarantee you that liamw is not a real name, for such name will not be legally registered anywhere.

I am not afraid to state publically who I am. Never been a coward.

Francien Verhoeven on November 20, 2012 at 3:12 pm

I’m not sure how one comment is supposed to represent a “norm” but regardless, unless I meet you personally, I have no reason to believe I’m actually speaking with the Francien Verhoeven you claim to be.

After all, there are numerous Phil Kings, so you can’t be sure whom you are addressing either.

In any case, the point is utterly moot. Either you can debate the facts of the matter or you can’t.

You are of course always entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Phil King on November 20, 2012 at 3:19 pm

Within one comment the ‘norm’ does not have to be representable. You are correct on that one. But it certainly seems the norm that the questions of my initial posting are completely ignored while my posting in response to another response are taken up in a hasty hurry. Why not consider the side-tracking to be moot and answer the questions held within my initial posting instead? The norm has changed considerably, wouldn’t you say?

The name Phil King may be fake but I do not know that for sure. It is a fact that ‘liamw’ is a fake name. And so my response came forth out of a knowing fact.

Francien Verhoeven on November 20, 2012 at 3:47 pm

Oh it’s just a little pet peeve of mine. I hate it when people inject irrelevent and meaningless distinctions in order to “get at” someone they disagree with.
Like all forms of argumentation, it simply undermines the discussion.

Phil King on November 20, 2012 at 3:53 pm

Exactly! And once again Phil King manages to not answer any of my questions posted at the onset.

Francien Verhoeven on November 20, 2012 at 3:57 pm

Reply to what precisely?

Your contention that people aren’t willing to do anything about the situation? That’s a belief with no supporting fact. It can’t be argued, and is besides the point given that any effective action would have to be a collective one. We’re not all on a equal playing field after all. There’s a reason we have the best of us lead society. (in theory lol)

Should I reply to your contention that we shouldn’t act without perfect knowledge of the chances of success? Well that one’s pretty straight forward: we’re in for it one way or another, but every decade we wait means one more step towards a potential thermal maxima. Try googling the last time that happened and tell me if that isn’t enough of a reason to move on things sooner rather than later.

How about your contention that “we’ll adapt”? Well I suppose if you don’t mind killing off most of the population of the planet, then great! Or we could not be a bunch of psychopaths and actually care what happens to most of humanity. I don’t know, bit of a toss up hmmm?

In the end though, the common thread of your comments is the arguing for inaction. Other than that in fact your comments wouldn’t appear to have any logical flow-through.

Now, how about YOU answer my main comment at the top?

Phil King on November 20, 2012 at 4:15 pm

Phil King says: “Now, how about YOU answer my main comment at the top?” Why should I respond to your posting at the top? Had never an intention of doing so. Furthermore, I have never demanded that people must respond to my postings. I am only demanding that when people respond to my postings they do so in relation to my posting.

My posting on this thread was in regards to jackdale and the 90% chance. (see my initial post), to which liamw responded that I should stop digging a hole, from which all else, including your responses to me, flowed forth.

Now you try and address all of my several postings in one post, namely this post thread. It would be better, if you would care to respond to my postings, to do so underneath the reply section underneath the initial posting.

The following are the questions posed by me within this thread:

And what percentage will the chance be that global warming will take place regardless of human intervention?

Better yet, what percentage will the chance be that global warming
will keep occurring even if humans put everything in place to stop human
contribution to the phenomenon?

Any answers? Would the answer be 30%? 50%? Have scientists used models to find out the answers?

Francien Verhoeven on November 20, 2012 at 4:39 pm

You are looking for simple answers to complex problems. That is not going to happen. In any complex system there are multiple variables. As an example, historically CO2 was an amplifier of warming, which is why the Vostok ice cores show it trailing temperature changes. Now it is recognized as a trigger and water vapour is now seen as a major amplifier. Is the sun involved? Of course, all of our energy and heat come from the sun. But the sun’s activities have been slowing; therefore cannot be considered a contributing factor at this time.

jackdale on November 20, 2012 at 4:46 pm

Oh, I fully understand that the problems are complex. That is exactly the point I am trying to make.

And so before we start putting billions and billions more into trying to clean up our human contribution to the problem, I would like to know how much of a difference to the total picture it’s going to make.

To put it more clearly: how much will it cost to clean up or eliminate the global average net effect of human activities, and how are the chances for climate change IF and WHEN we have cleaned up the human net effect.

If you go back to my initial post, you will see that I am stating those questions quite clearly.

I think the answer (to both of my questions) is that the percentage of climate change after the human net contribution has been cleaned up, is NOT known. But it should be known before we put billions and billions more into a clean up which in the end may not give us a satisfactory result in any case. Why clean up the human net effect if such clean up may, or may not, make a big enough difference in the end.

I would like to see the numbers on both sides.

Francien Verhoeven on November 20, 2012 at 4:58 pm

Do you think the same way about cigarettes? Many of the AGW “deniers” began their careers instilling doubts about the dangers of smoking.

jackdale on November 20, 2012 at 5:24 pm

Interesting comparable.

Yes, studies show that smoking is bad for ones health. Early death may be as a result. But early death is not always the result of smoking. There are other causes and besides, if there were no other causes to be detected, the smoking may also NOT lead to an early death.

Real life example: both my grandfathers were smokers and one lived to be 82 while the other one lived to be 94. (those facts can be verified).

Now, the question: would both men have lived as long if they had not smoked at all? In other words, would both men have lived as long as they did had they cleaned up their act earlier? I would say that in both cases, they probably wouldn’t have lived much longer had they stopped smoking earlier.

Francien Verhoeven on November 20, 2012 at 5:31 pm

My mother, a smoker, died of lung cancer at 88. Yes, she would have lived longer had she not contracted lung cancer. Yes, smoking contributed to her lung cancer. Yes, there are other factors, like genetics, involved.

BTW – are you going to wait until your house catches fire before you buy insurance?

jackdale on November 20, 2012 at 5:38 pm

Reaching the age of 88 is already higher than the average. We do eventually die of something.

Btw, it is a probability that your mother could have lived longer sans smoking, but it is not a given fact. Don’t overstate the case here.

Not everyone buys fire insurance. When in need of a mortgage, fire insurance is a must. But living without fire insurance is a possibility. And a realistic one at that.

Francien Verhoeven on November 20, 2012 at 5:45 pm

Those are easy. 100%. Climate changes. Always has. Always will. Global Warming *will* take place, as will global cooling, and it will take place no matter what we do.

What your questions miss, however, are the more important questions: By How Much? And most importantly: How quickly?

This thing about pouring billions into a hole is purely loaded language with no basis in fact. The fact is that the billions we pour into this hole will be billions spent on improving our efficiency with our resources.

The only reason it’s not being done right now is because the resources can be extracted so cheaply, the bill for their use hasn’t come due yet, and when it does, it will be on all of us, not just the producers or users.

Thwim on November 21, 2012 at 12:31 am

so the billions of dollars put into cap and trade do not count?

Europe has been doing the cap and trade system for some time now. Such can be measured, I suppose. So how much difference has that made? Science is all about proof, right? Well, I am asking them to show us the proof.

Francien Verhoeven on November 21, 2012 at 8:30 am

Classic diversion technique by someone on the wrong side of an argument.

You changed the subject to something that has absolutely no bearing on the point being discussed. How about answering Liam W’s point, if you can.

harebell on November 20, 2012 at 3:26 pm

And what would liamw’s point be? That I should stop digging a hole?

Liamw doesn’t have the guts to post under his own name and he doesn’t have the guts to respond to my questions posed. Those are the facts.

I will repeat my questions as posted initially, questions which have not been responded to by anyone so far. Go figure! Accusing others of doing the diverting by diverting. Great style.

Here are the initial questions (if you or others don’t know the answers, just say so!):

And what percentage will the chance be that global warming will take place regardless of human intervention?

Better yet, what percentage will the chance be that global warming
will keep occurring even if humans put everything in place to stop human
contribution to the phenomenon?

Can’t find much in that one either in regards to chances of global warming with or without human intervention.

Francien Verhoeven on November 21, 2012 at 4:40 pm

I think you misread the journal article.

“Here, the probability that

the model-estimated GHG component of warming is

greater than the entire observed trend (i.e., not just greater

than ‘‘most’’ of the observed warming) is about 93 %.

Using IPCC terminology, therefore, it is very likely that

GHG-induced warming is greater than the observed

warming.”

jackdale on November 21, 2012 at 5:14 pm

“the probability” and “model-estimated” “very likely” and “observed” once again, it all sounds so wishy-whashy, even when I read it the first time, now weeks ago.

sorry, jackdale, I understand you’ve put a lot of faith in all of these ‘maybe’s’ but I would rather pay just once. When climate change occurs, we will have to pay for it, just like it was paid for to let half the population of Holland live under sea level…. and guess what: they’re doing just fine, flourishing in fact. I visited one of those sites to protect the Dutch citizens from high sea levels just a few months ago. Amazing what the human mind can come up with. Truly amazing.

Francien Verhoeven on November 21, 2012 at 6:46 pm

I put my science in science, rather than wishful thinking. Forecasting is always based on probabilities. Observed data is just that – reality.

By the way the rising seal levels could overwhelm the current dike system in the Netherlands.

“Similarly, a commission of 20 international experts, called on by the Dutch government to help plan its coastal defences, recently gave a range of 55cm to 1.1 metres for sea-level rises by 2100. “Equally important, this commission has highlighted the fact that sea-level rise will not stop in the year 2100,” said Professor Stefan Rahmstorf of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “By 2200, they estimate a rise of 1.5 to 3.5m unless we stop the warming. This would spell the end of many of our coastal cities.”

jackdale on November 21, 2012 at 7:03 pm

Sea level rise is exaggerated

“We are told sea level is rising and will soon swamp all of
our cities. Everybody knows that the Pacific island of Tuvalu is
sinking. …

Around 1990 it became obvious the local tide-gauge did not
agree – there was no evidence of ‘sinking.’ So scientists at Flinders
University, Adelaide, set up new, modern, tide-gauges in 12 Pacific
islands.

Recently, the whole project was abandoned as there was no
sign of a change in sea level at any of the 12 islands for the past 16
years.”

In summary, every piece of concrete information in the (unlinked francien cutn’paste) is wrong.

Hilarious.

lenny on November 22, 2012 at 2:03 am

Here’s some science for you:

The Netherlands is a country particularly vulnerable to rising sea
levels, as two-thirds of its population lives below sea level.
Throughout its history, the Dutch have understood the inevitability of
change and how society must work with nature for effective strategies.
In 2007, the Dutch began preparing for the changing climate in the
upcoming two hundred years. They recognize that their nation will
continue to combat rising seas, and must act expeditiously in order to
prevent further encroachment. In State of the World 2012, Erik
Assadourian outlines the 200-year plan put forth by the Dutch,
describing their strategy to spend $1 billion a year on climate change
adaptation. Through such policies, it is clear that the Netherlands is
focused on the long-term public interest and not short-term private
interests. The Dutch plancombines innovative techniques like building
surge barriers and extending the coastline, with more traditional
methods, such as fortifying levees.

Creating and approving such a comprehensive, long-term climate plan
is difficult, but implementing the plan will be even more challenging —
though the Dutch are making headway. For example, Room for the River,
seeks to improve floodplain functions while concurrently improving the
environmental and economic qualities of life for those inhabiting the
Waal River region. Additionally, Rotterdam, the second-largest city in
the Netherlands, is developing new ways to live with water, including
storing it in parking garages and skateparks, and by re-opening canals.
Rotterdam hopes to be climate neutral by 2030. The Dutch are even
addressing root causes, like dietary norms, in order to decrease
greenhouse gas emissions. Recognizing that meat consumption is resource
intensive and produces large amounts of methane, the Dutch government
recently invested a million Euros in legislation to facilitate insect
farming for human consumption –a very farsighted approach to address
climate change.

Francien Verhoeven on November 21, 2012 at 7:57 pm

OK

Now I understand. The Dutch are planning for something in which you do not believe and for which you are prepared to to take your chances. But I guess that rising sea levels are not an issue in Erskine.

“They recognize that their nation will continue to combat rising seas, and must act expeditiously in order to prevent further encroachment. In State of the World 2012, Erik Assadourian outlines the 200-year plan put forth by the Dutch, describing their strategy to spend $1 billion a year on climate change adaptation.”

Sorry – I am out of here

jackdale on November 21, 2012 at 8:52 pm

I’ve never said the Dutch don’t believe in climate change.

What I have questioned all along (see my contention in my first post on this thread) is the billions spent.

The Dutch have decided to spend the billions on adaptation. And good for them, I’d say.

Not very difficult to understand. But I’m not surprised you’ve given up. It happens all the time when the arguments go one way or another.

Cheers!

Francien Verhoeven on November 21, 2012 at 9:05 pm

Becoming “climate neutral” and eating insects to reduce methane emissions isn’t adaptation. Becoming “climate neutral” is exactly the opposite of the “taking your chances” approach you propose. They are spending money on adaptation in addition to prevention

lenny on November 22, 2012 at 1:52 am

harebell, still no response? Do you not know the answer to my question?

Typical disappearance when real substance is being called for.

Francien Verhoeven on November 20, 2012 at 4:42 pm

Sorry, I was working and now have 5 minutes to check this. Sorry I don’t have copious amounts of free time to spend here.

As to your question. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting things to change is silly. Watching something steaming towards you and failing to get out of the way or take some remedial action is also silly.

Climate change is happening – There is evidence that we are contributing to climate change, so it makes sense to stop making this hole deeper.

It will effect coastal areas hugely. Most of the world’s population lives in low lying coastal areas – Regardless of whether you think us stopping digging the hole will make any difference, we as a world should be planning to move folk from these areas. If this is not planned for it will happen anyway and it will involve violence and huge upheaval.

Costs will be Billions whatever we do, but more lives could be saved by being pro-active.

harebell on November 20, 2012 at 6:12 pm

and still no answer to the questions I put forth. And so it goes…..

Francien Verhoeven on November 20, 2012 at 7:11 pm

I answered your concern about costs that you mentioned elsewhere.

I also said that Climate change is guaranteed to occur whatever the cause.
It’s going to happen regardless. I hope you are smart enough to work out the percentage for that.

Money will be spent either prior to, during or after.
We will have to deal with it.

harebell on November 20, 2012 at 9:17 pm

In case money will be spent, and serious money at that, it would be smart indeed to figure out what the chances are of climate change occurring even IF we would clean up the human involvement, because if we spent considerable cash to clean up our human climate change contributions and then STILL have to deal with the effects of climate change, then we would pay double, and it is exactly that which I am questioning.

If the chances for considerable climate change still exists even if we clean up the human contributions, then why pay first to eliminate the human contribution and then pay again for the effects of climate change after all.

We might as well pay for the effects of climate change once, not twice.

But the scientific community does not seem to be concerned about monetary costs involved. And that is a problem.

Francien Verhoeven on November 20, 2012 at 10:53 pm

Okay so if you leave a bath overflowing with both taps on and forget about it,it overflows. On finding it overflowing you could I suppose let it keep going until the tank runs out or the pipes block up on their own and begin cleaning up while it continues to overflow; or you could turn off the taps before starting the cleanup. I know what I’d do, but whatever flicks your switch.

Science tells us what is happening, it’s down to us as a society what we do about it and actions cost money.

harebell on November 20, 2012 at 11:43 pm

you simply don’t understand science do you. The Sun is not 100 per cent guaranteed to rise tomorrow, but given what we know about gravity and the fact we don’t see any sign of the Sun’s nuclear reactions failing anytime soon, I wouldn’t bet against it. It is the same with CO2. We know what CO2 does according to the laws of physics. Adding more CO2 into the air will very likely have the expected results as advertized by the laws of physics. Still… there may be some thing we have not considered. Think about it this way, if you drive straight for a brick wall your car’s engine may give out because of some mechanical fault you were not aware of. Does that make driving straight at a brick wall a good idea? Perhaps not.

A bit too much about James Balog? But wasn’t the “Inconvenient Truth” also a bit much about Gore? And what has changed since? Well, Al Gore isn’t preaching nearly as much as he used to do.

If people were really that concerned about the consequences of climate change and global warming, they would be willing to make many more changes on an individual level. But we don’t see that at all. The world is full of empty talk and shows little action, if any, on an individual level. In fact, I would say that what triumphs on an individual level is to put blame on someone else for the polluting of our earth.

Go ahead, ask anyone if they are to be blamed individually and find out what their answer will be.

liamw posts:”That’s right. The science will all fall apart because Al Gore went on a holiday.”

What is the fair point he is trying to make?

Don’t run now. Tell me what the fair point is. I am waiting to hear that one.

Francien Verhoeven on November 20, 2012 at 3:59 pm

His remark was a snipe at you holding out that Al Gore was the be all and end all of climate change science, when he clearly isn’t. It seemed very clear to me.
Your response was to throw a hissy fit and avoid reading any meaning into his point.
how’s that?

harebell on November 20, 2012 at 6:15 pm

Unless or until someone in the “denier” group is prepared to offer an explanation as to why the standard model of particle physics would somehow be wrong regarding the LONG ESTABLISHED Green House Gas effect, in addition to being able to dispute the only existing model that explains why the earth has maintained liquid water on its surface for billions of years, i.e. the CO2 Rock-weathering Thermostat Model, then one should recognize them for what they are: wishful thinkers of the worst and most dangerous kind.

The simple fact is that the CO2 Rock-weathering Thermostat Model is the only existing model for a reason. No one has even suggested another model because the evidence has become overwhelming in favour of the existing model. Talk to a paleo-geologist or paleo-climatologist if you want the skinny on that, or check out this lecture.

The only area in which there is any debate is the predictive modeling. Over the short term it is very difficult to predict the progression and timing, because we don’t understand fully all the micro-level interactions.

Over the long term however, there is little doubt that we are heating the planet, and that we may trigger some very startling tipping point effects at unknown points in the future. The fact that we can’t predict the progression is therefore actually a further reason to be concerned, rather than the anti-evidence the “deniers” believe it to be.

when i was at school, in geography / history classes, i was taught that the ice glacier were melting, and that’s the way it works,: millions of year prior, the country was covered in ice (age), and destroy a lot living things. Now were at the stage in history that, with millions of year in time,again, the glaciers are melting back, and we have found fossils, and we are learning a lot out of them, and this was it, called EVOLUTION, no big deal…Now, some 40 years later, the same geo / history class say it’s PANIC TIME!, OMG….. we’re all gonna die,

(According to Maurice Strong & co., and leaders of the green movement) it’s all of our fault,

we need to pay, we are guilty, blah,blah etc. Well, first, FEAR sells, GUILT sells, and you can control a population with FEAR. So they found out. Now, the gov’ts have realized that Maurice & co. have created a CASH COW, (like eco fees, eco tax, enviro fees, hidden or not, and etc.) so now they are on the bandwagon, KA-CHING, $$$$, At this point, i became wary and skeptic. You watch documentaries., or listen to experts’ opinions, and the question, now is: ” Who is behind that expert, who sponsors him, and, is he manipulated to say what the gov’t wants us to hear?

Notice: Your email may not yet have been verified. Please check your email, click the link to verify your address, and then submit your comment. If you can't find this email, access your profile editor to re-send the confirmation email. You must have a verified email to submit a comment. Once you have done so, check again.

Almost Done!

Please confirm the information below before signing up.

{* #socialRegistrationForm *}
{* socialRegistration_firstName *}
{* socialRegistration_lastName *}
{* socialRegistration_emailAddress *}
{* socialRegistration_displayName *}
By clicking "Create Account", I confirm that I have read and understood each of the website terms of service and privacy policy and that I agree to be bound by them.